nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is Wikipedia really so unreliable?

Madam_X

I don't know much about it tbh, hence asking the question, but doesn't it have fact-checking people, base its info on reliable sources to which it also links, etc?

I'd have thought that because it's deemed so unreliable, those running the show would be under extra pressure to allay such fears?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NegativeCreep

I don't know. I have one lecturer that lets us reference Wikipedia but the rest don't. Any information I've found seemed to be accurate enough and inaccurate information seems to be dealt with fairly quickly.

sky88

got me through 4 years of college so i think its great

awec

Like everywhere it's hit and miss. TBH I think it's grand for generally quoting on here, but I wouldn't be relying on it for anything official (like a thesis).

All content is community edited which has risks, it only employs like 140 people. The rest are all volunteers. It doesn't make money.

Mr X edits article on Giraffes on Monday and puts in incorrect information.

You go read it on the Tuesday, and take what you read as fact.

Mrs Y notices Mr X's edit on Wednesday and fixes it, removing the incorrect info.

Madam_X

awec wrote: »

Mr X edits article on Giraffes on Monday and puts in incorrect information.

You go read it on the Tuesday, and take what you read as fact.

Mrs Y notices Mr X's edit on Wednesday and fixes it, removing the incorrect info.

Thought the moderation would be quicker than that?

Sisko

University's hate it.

Research traditionally was always an important part of things but these days its so easy, a lot of the work is already done and a quick Google gets you the results it took them to get after hours/days/weeks back when they were all in University.

Imo its one of the top 2 most important websites on the internet. However i can understand the worry people would have of 100% completely depending on it.

BillyMitchel

Four years in college and we were never allowed to use it as a reference. Many times myself I've found information in it to be wrong.

Boombastic

If suspicious of the info, click the links it references...

awec

Madam_X wrote: »

Thought the moderation would be quicker than that?

Anyone can edit an article. There are millions of articles.

Not all articles are moderated, only high profile ones. The majority of articles rely on community based checks and balances (i.e. me and you noticing something is incorrect).

Peregrine

Madam_X wrote: »

Thought the moderation would be quicker than that?

Depends on the popularity of the article.

I've never actually come across hugely inaccurate info on it, some things could be biased but is quickly changed to politically correct terms and all. There is a "talk" section in every article, click it. It'll just show you how much volunteers actually contribute to the thread, changes are requested, debated etc.

Kinski

An article on a completely made-up colonial war managed to stay on Wikipedia for five years.

It has plenty of good articles, and is fine as a starting-point when delving into a new topic, but nobody should rely on it when conducting serious research, including writing essays for college.

nocoverart

Just search Wikipedia on Wikipedia and read it all whilst smoking a few spliffs, and see for yourself if you think Wikipedia is telling you the truth = Total Head Fook!

jjbrien

When i went to university they hated it but i found it easier to check the references of it. I did IT and most of the stuff was ok so long as the references checked out. But you could never tell when you got the stuff from wiki

awec

There are people who literally spend their spare time editing on Wikipedia as a hobby, the site relies on people like that. Not all of them add content, a lot of them just tidy things up and fix layouts etc.

Personally I love the site, read it multiple times a day. All sorts of random stuff.

Seachmall

It's solid to give you an overall understanding of the topic but in terms of specific claims on it you should make sure they're sourced and, if you're really interested, do some research on your own.

I will say I've found it to be more accurate than not, and undoubtedly more accurate than some of the teachers and lecturers I've had. It's the first place I go when first learning about a something.

matrim

Normally it will be fine but because it can be edited by anyone at any time if you reference it for something official, your reference could be gone when someone looks for it or you could have made the edit yourself.

In saying the above it's a great starting point when you want to start looking something up. Read the wiki page, get an overview then follow the wikipedia references to find more information on the particular subject.

If you're doing a Thesis or official document that doesn't accept wikipeida references it's not hard to follow the reference on wikipedia and then use that as your reference instead of the wiki page.

RDM_83 again

Its a damn useful resource and I've even used in a professional role to look up administrative areas* etc but it can;t be relied upon for anything that your going to reference.

A good thing to do is to check out the Talk part of the page so you can see the edits and whats been put in or removed and what people are disagreeing on. Its also less reliable for anything thats controversial in the modern day e.g Israel Additionally just because there's links and references it doesn;t mean that those references actually say whats in the article though I've only noticed this a handful of times. In short I think its reliable for stuff thats "provable" e.g the sciences and less reliable for things like history archaeology where there's multiple interpretations

* Though i did once end up a gay porn website after clicking on a external link about Cantons

Gbear

It's good at getting lots of information in one place. It's pretty easy to go down to the sources and see where they're getting their information from.

If the source is a scientific journal or a university press then it's grand.

It's pretty much the same as any amalgamation of sources. For academic purposes you'd really want to be checking the sources cited in any reading material and not just taking it on faith unless it was specifically recommended to you by your lecturer.

I remember reading a New Scientist article suggesting that it had a pretty favourable accuracy rate when compared to things like Encyclopedia Britannica on health-related matters.

jill_valentine

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as a published encyclopedia (remember them?), and often has the advantage because it can be more up to date. There are errors and spoofs, yes, but it's surprisingly accurate given its scale and those cases are the exception rather than the rule.

A great starting point. No more no less.

kraggy

Remember this? A journalist from the Guardian no less.

http://www.herald.ie/news/ucd-student-hoodwinked-world-on-wikipedia-27910943.html

stevek93

Wikipedia is the only website that is wrong. Had a assignment in college not to long ago for anyone who is familiar with computers we were asked to install
a network card inside a pc fairly simple task found some the quotes on this website rather amusing http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-install-a-network-adapter-in-your-computer.html

nocoverart

awec wrote: »

There are people who literally spend their spare time editing on Wikipedia as a hobby, the site relies on people like that. Not all of them add content, a lot of them just tidy things up and fix layouts etc.

Personally I love the site, read it multiple times a day. All sorts of random stuff.

I love it too! for some weird reason I have a bit of an obsession with Siberia and Russia in general, and Wikipedia clears up the complexed geography of it all for me. Even though I still feel a bit confuzzled about that confusing place, kinda like I don't know if I'm combing my hair or tying my shoelaces.

Jordan 199

I find it a great site for getting Formula 1 info

Scar Tissue

A lot of the college notes provided to us are ripped straight from Wikipedia, so I f*cking hope so.

Either that, or our lecturer's kindly upload their completely original notes to Wikipedia... ahem

sock puppet

Sisko wrote: »

University's hate it.

Research traditionally was always an important part of things but these days its so easy, a lot of the work is already done and a quick Google gets you the results it took them to get after hours/days/weeks back when they were all in University.

That's not the reason really. Most lecturers would encourage the use of Google Scholar for example.

Grayson

Seachmall wrote: »

It's solid to give you an overall understanding of the topic but in terms of specific claims on it you should make sure they're sourced and, if you're really interested, do some research on your own.

I will say I've found it to be more accurate than not, and undoubtedly more accurate than some of the teachers and lecturers I've had. It's the first place I go when first learning about a something.

Was just about to say that. When I'm researching Wikipedia will always give me a good overview. It's pretty much always accurate. But i know I can never use it as a source. So i check it first to get my head around the topic and then start getting other sources i can cite.

I actually donated 5 dollars to them today when i was reading up for an essay. After 3 years of college they're worth every penny

Grayson

stevek93 wrote: »

Wikipedia is the only website that is wrong. Had a assignment in college not to long ago for anyone who is familiar with computers we were asked to install
a network card inside a pc fairly simple task found some the quotes on this website rather amusing http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-install-a-network-adapter-in-your-computer.html

Pull it out, shove it in. That's pretty much it.

Gbear

Grayson wrote: »

Pull it out, shove it in. That's pretty much it.

Tools required: Hammer, cheese knife.

kowloon

At the very least it's a good place to start if you're reading up on something. It can give you bad information but usually it gives you the popular view and some links that get you started.
Science topics, computing and other tech are usually accurate enough. I think it gets more bad press than it deserves.

callaway92

For checking up Sports Player' stats (boxing records, goals pg etc) it is very useful.

orestes

Seachmall wrote: »

It's solid to give you an overall understanding of the topic but in terms of specific claims on it you should make sure they're sourced and, if you're really interested, do some research on your own.

I will say I've found it to be more accurate than not, and undoubtedly more accurate than some of the teachers and lecturers I've had. It's the first place I go when first learning about a something.

Pretty much exactly the way I'd think of it too. I use it a lot recently after getting interested in history, it's damned useful for getting a general understanding of something or to cross-reference details - commissioned by King Geoffrey XVI, which one was that again? *check wiki* ah right - great grandson of King Jeremy the XIV, damned chronology, if you're all gonna marry your cousins at least vary the names a bit *check wiki*.

It's like having a pretty reliable and readily available index system on almost anything you can think of so that you know what you're looking for when you go to the library to really read up on a subject. If I were using it for actual research purposes I'd just use it to find out what journals to look up on a college database.